Given recent progress in the development of artificial intelligence, many policy conversations take for granted that such advancements will lead to mass technological unemployment and could even create a permanent underclass. Once these "facts" are established, a radical and sweeping policy solution typically follows, most often an argument for the necessity of a Universal Basic Income (UBI). But despite their growing popularity, such apocalyptic predictions about the role of AI in replacing human labor and the need for a UBI are greatly overblown. Although I've written on this topic previously (one
article even garnering a
response from Democratic Presidential Candidate Andrew Yang), the doomsayers' case seems to be in need of a robust response.
When thinking about UBI, it's important to understand the reasons why some may suggest it as a necessary solution in the first place and why the case is frequently overstated. Even beyond those issues, the concept of implementing UBI as a public policy solution has significant shortcomings that should be discussed.
Several years ago, there were some
alarming reports that estimated that
up to 47 percent of jobs in the U.S. were at "high risk" of being automated over the following 20 years. These kinds of studies prompted some initial discussions of technological unemployment and what a public policy response might include. However,
a more recent study by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) puts that figure at only
10 percent. Additionally,
the World Economic Forum predicts that robots will displace 75 million jobs globally by 2022
but create 133 million new ones - a net positive. So, more recent data suggests that the effect of technology on job opportunities will be negligible. This conclusion applies to our current situation and into the future,
as echoed by the World Bank.
Comment: See: